XAVIER GEORGE v. UNION OF INDIA
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Oct 2008
- Bench
- R BASANT
Outcome
Allowed
WPC 28716/083a) this writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Counsel for the respondent submits that under Section 19the Central Government has the option to file an appeal and without and before exhausting that right of appeal the amount may not bedirected to be paid. There is nothing to show that any appeal has…
Judgment
WPC.NO.28716/2008 RAPPENDIXPETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:P1:COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.28391/07 & WPC.1581/2008DTD. 18/06/2008 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.P2:COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT – SMT.G.S.CHANDINI,ASST.DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, COCHIN ZONAL OFFICE, DTD.18/07/2008.P3:COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI.C.VELYAUDHAN, A.S.I., R.P.F.,GURUVAYOOR DTD.11/08/2007.P4:COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF SHRI.C.VELYAUDHAN, ASI, RPF, GURUVAYOOR DTD. 24/07/2008.P5:COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF SHRI.T.T.MATHAI, H.C., ERNAKULAMSOUTH RAILWAY POLICE STATION, DTD. 31/07/2008.P6:COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.P7:COPY OF LETTER ISSUED TO 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.1/09/2008.RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:ANNEXURE R1:COPY OF THE CIRCULAR TEC.NO.8/2003.ANNEXURE R2&R2(A):COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/08/2008 FOLLOWED BY A REMINDER ON 2/09/2008.ANNEXURE R2(B):COPY OF LETTER DTD. 29/09/2008./TRUE COPY/P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R. BASANT, J.-------------------------------W.P(C). No. 28716 OF 2008-------------------------------Dated this the 7th October, 2008. JUDGMENTThis judgment must be read in continuation of the judgment dated 18.6.2008 in W.P(C) 28391/07. That was a writ petition filed by the first petitioner herein. On the basis of the directions issued in the said judgment adjudication proceedings has been completed and Ext.P6 order dated 25.8.2008 has been passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 13 of the Foreign ExchangeManagement Act, 1999. The petitioners have now come with the grievance that notwithstanding the order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 13 wherein there is a specific direction to release the amount of Rs.5,53,070/- seized from the possession of the second petitioner (after deducting an amount of Rs.75,000/-and Rs.1,00,000/- from the total amount of Rs.7,28,070 seized) the amount is not being released by the respondents to the petitioners –to be specific the second petitioner. The petitioners are allegedly employer and employee.
Notice was given to the respondents. Respondents were WPC 28716/082called upon to explain why in spite of the order passed under Section 13 the amount is not being released to the second petitioner. A statement has been filed and reliance appears to have been placed on Annexure R1 circular issued by the Director of Enforcement Directorate. That circular can definitely have no application when the release sought is in furtherance of an order passed by the adjudicating authority in favour of the noticee. Theamount has to be released forthwith to the second petitioner.
Operative part
Counsel for the respondent submits that under Section 19the Central Government has the option to file an appeal and without and before exhausting that right of appeal the amount may not bedirected to be paid. There is nothing to show that any appeal has already been filed. The mere possibility of an appeal I am satisfied cannot stand in the way of the second petitioner claiming release of the amount which he is entitled under law to obtain in the light of Ext.P6 order.4. Appropriate safeguards can of course be stipulated and it can be ensured that the second petitioner gets the advantage of Ext.P6 order forthwith.5. In the result: WPC 28716/083a) this writ petition is allowed.b) the respondents are directed to forthwith release the amount of Rs.5,53,070/- as directed in Ext.P6 order to the second petitioner on condition that he executes a bond for the said amount with one surety. Issue copy today itself to both sides. Compliance shall be reported to this Court by the respondents within a period of seven days.R. BASANT JUDGEjj
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: WPC 28716/083a) this writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Foreign ExchangeManagement Act, 1999 — s. 13.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 07 Oct 2008. The bench was R BASANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.